It was as if Leopold Von Sacher-Masoch's translator was assigned to use the words "dilettante", "suprasensual", and "ermine" as many times as humanlyIt was as if Leopold Von Sacher-Masoch's translator was assigned to use the words "dilettante", "suprasensual", and "ermine" as many times as humanly possible in the course of 100 pages-- to lazily tell a story about a man who wants to be his lover's slave.

The most intersting part of the book is its introduction, in which it is made known that the author lived out his own character's fantasies when a woman copied Wanda's letter and made Sacher-Masoch her slave. Hopefully, they weren't as boring as their fictional counterparts....more

To be good, character-driven novels need characters in them that are either (a) interestingly relatable to the reader, (b) uniquely interesting, (c) oTo be good, character-driven novels need characters in them that are either (a) interestingly relatable to the reader, (b) uniquely interesting, (c) or both.

Definitions and Examples:

a) Interestingly relatable: Characters that are interestingly relatable have qualities about them that are not specifically extraordinary but are qualities that appeal to the reader by evoking a sense of familiarity and empathy. They are the types of characters that remind you of your friend, your mom, your son, or even your worst enemy, in a very personal way; they are the types of characters that remind you of yourself when you were younger, or the part of yourself that you are proud of, or the part of yourself that embarrasses you. Such characters keep the reader intensely invested in the story’s upcoming downfalls, triumphs, developments, and conclusions.

For example, Jonathan Safran Foer’s Oskar (from Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close) is a nine-year-old multilingual, academic, pacifistic, and musical vegan raised in the information age of New York and tragically affected by 9-11; this makes Oskar a character to whom I can relate in an interesting way.

b) Uniquely interesting: Characters that are uniquely interesting (unlike the first category of characters that are interesting in the similarities they share with the reader) are interesting because of the unique qualities about them that make them stand out as an individual. The reader lives vicariously through these types of characters.

For example, the carefree quirkiness and all-embracing creativity of Andre Breton’s character Nadja is interesting in a unique way.

c) Both: And then, there is Superman who is uniquely interesting in that he is an alien from another planet but also relatable to the reader in that his human life is very average in terms of social status, romantic preferences, and creative achievements; what makes Clark Kent interesting is that he leads an average life even though he has superpowers.

Lolita:

Nobody I know reminds me of the psychopathic narrator or the bratty, apparently seductive, protagonist. As for myself, since I’m (luckily) neither a pedophile nor a nymphet, I cannot in any way relate to Humbert Humbert or Dolores Haze. Hence, for me to have liked "Lolita" would entail Nabokov’s depiction of characters that are unique.

At first I thought that maybe working in a group home where many of the kids were molested by their stepparents made me jaded; maybe my career normalized pedophilia for me in a way that minimized the story’s affect on me.

However, I realized that Nabokov made Lolita’s main characters uninteresting by illustrating other characters just like them. Throughout the book, Humbert Humbert tries to make us believe that he is obsessed with Lolita but still makes sure to tell us that there’s another nymphet here and there and everywhere. Towards the end of the book, we learn about other nymphets that are molested in pornographic orgies. This makes Lolita un-unique and diminishes the tragedy of her lost childhood; also, she’s a brat just like any other kid (but not in a way that reminds the reader of a daughter, or niece, or cousin).

Humbert Humbert’s love for Lolita isn’t uniquely interesting either. Clare Quilty is introduced as another man just like Humbert Humbert who wants to fuck Lolita, but in an even creepier way. He has parties, and friends, and pornography.

Now that I think about it… I would much rather have read a book that started with Clare Quilty kidnapping Lolita and ended with the brat being kicked out of his place since she would not participate in his attempts at producing kiddie-porn. At least Clare Quilty is a semi-successful playwright with a gregarious personality that attracts multiple sexual partners and fans. He is outspoken and funny, sarcastic and witty. The only thing Humbert Humbert had going for him was his good looks.

Unfortunately, Nabokov saved the uniquely interesting Clare Quilty for the end and tortured me with hundreds of pages of Humbert Humbert trying to think of a hundred ways to bribe Lolita into secretly giving him sexual favors.

There are many shocking and uncomfortable themes that writers can play with but characterization is very important. Lolita and Humbert Humbert fail as characters in a shocking and uncomfortable relationship.

Furthermore, “Lolita” should not be given so much credit just because Nabokov is ESL....more

I finished this book last night and my eyes and nose still hurt from crying so much. Usually, a book so skilled in wrenching tears out of my eyes warrI finished this book last night and my eyes and nose still hurt from crying so much. Usually, a book so skilled in wrenching tears out of my eyes warrant 4-5 stars on goodreads but the end of the book left me so overwhelmingly dissatisfied that the sting in my eyes from crying only made the book more annoying.

(It started off annoying because Niffenegger insisted on mentioning at least one pleasant [but ridiculously trite:] detail about each person of color she introduced into the story. Sure, it's great to finally have a book where not every character is assumed to be white; indeed, Niffenegger made a point to describe almost each white person as blonde, redhaired, or Polish, thereby straying away from American Lit's assumption that every character is white unless otherwise stated. Extra points for that, but not every black lady needs to have a nice voice, nice skin, or beautiful hair. Besides, Niffenegger's brownie points for her inclusion of beautiful women of color is completely counterbalanced by how the significant others (Ingrid and Gomez) of those beautiful women of color (Celia and Charisse) are obsessively and inexplicably in love with white folk (Henry and Claire). That's annoying.)

Also, Claire could have been much more interesting. In her Acknowledgements section, Niffenegger thanked the staff at the Newberry library; she said, otherwise Henry would have worked at Starbucks instead of being an interesting librarian. I think it was GREAT that Henry was a librarian, that he likes to read, that he's the son of an alcoholic father whose drinking problems were triggered by the death of the love of his life. That's all interesting and character-building. And sure, it's OK for Henry to be white because giving another ethnicity the problem of a genetic defect seems unfair for an author to do.

But Claire... she most definitely did not have to be a white and wealthy artist. Niffenegger maybe should have explored other careers other than the careers of librarians to make Claire more interesting too. Or if "artist" was so necessary, then Claire could have at least been more like Charisse: a Pilipino, middle class, artistic anarchist. Niffenegger's attributing good 80's music taste, the French language, and skill for sculpture on Claire wasn't enough to make her worthy of Henry.

Also, as someone who was studying for a Family Law final while reading this book in between for breaks, it made me want to puke that Claire held her dead chrono-impaired fetus in her hand and STILL persisted on having babies (even before future Henry told her to keep on persisting). Adopt folks. Adopt.

Henry's matter of death could have been more interesting.

WIth all those criticisms said, Niffenegger definitely used the theme of time travel satisfactorily and most definitely excelled in the theme of death. That's how the tears start pouring. =)...more

Although I hate when writers cannot commit to using their character's first or last names, and then in the same sentence, switch back and forth from fAlthough I hate when writers cannot commit to using their character's first or last names, and then in the same sentence, switch back and forth from first name to last name without ever considering using a pronoun here or there, I still loved reading this book because Salman Rushdie has a way with words that makes it absolutely easy for an audience to imagine (and believe) that there were once two men out there in this world, (Gibreel Farishta with a glowing halo and Saladin Chamcha with monstrous horns), that simply went about their lives just like any other character pulling stories together through a historical, cultural, and theological maze filled with principles of (im)morality and appreciated details such as hot demon sex, mountain-climbing-ankle-spraining-bone-breaking side stories, philosophy and pop culture references, butterfly-covered-prophetess-nakedness, jealousy, love, lust, betrayal, forgiveness, family, friendship, polygamy, erotic and empowered whores yearning to be dominated by a blue man, and scream-inducing-satanic-rhyming-whispered-verses through an English telephone line, all of which were entertaining and impressively interwoven into a magically real read....more

If I lived in 18th century Saint-Domingue and New Orleans, I would have been best friends with Island Beneath the Sea's side characters.

I would haveIf I lived in 18th century Saint-Domingue and New Orleans, I would have been best friends with Island Beneath the Sea's side characters.

I would have danced and danced and danced with old Honore and smuggle runaway slaves into freedom on Captain Toledano's pirate ship! I would've joined the Maroons in poisoning the food and burning the homes of white plantation owners. I would've prayed with (and then to) Tante Rose, recruited Adele into a feminist stitch-and-bitch group, and joined allegiance with Gambo in his righteous quest for freedom, revenge, sex, and justice.

Spotted typos in English translation:

"...and to his left, on another wall, was pinned an fanciful unfolded map of the Antilles..." (page 153)

"There are hundreds of thousand of rebel blacks scattered around the island, and I have a way to get them to join with us."

Tear-jerker warning: I cried at page 442 when a beggar sang Gambo's song....more

Gertrudis, (the strong, powerful, and sexually liberated revolutionary sister of the main character) is my hero. She leads an army and she can dance!Gertrudis, (the strong, powerful, and sexually liberated revolutionary sister of the main character) is my hero. She leads an army and she can dance! Gertrudis so convincingly exemplifies Emma Goldman's condition to membership in an activist movement: "If I can't dance, it's not my revolution!"

While Gertrudis's sister Tita isn't as fun and inspiring; never has a woman made me so hungry and horny at the same time....more

I've been wanting to say something mean like, "Nichole Krauss must have felt unsatisfied after watching great movies like 50 First Dates and Eternal SI've been wanting to say something mean like, "Nichole Krauss must have felt unsatisfied after watching great movies like 50 First Dates and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, and decided to fill in these interesting films about memory loss with all the torturously mundane details that the screen writers left out."

But when I realized that both of those movies were written AFTER "Man Walks Into a Room", I had to at least give the book an extra star for building on a theme that I love to wrap my mind around.

Nitpicks: I understand that in American Literature, almost every character is assumed to be white, unless otherwise stated. However, when a writer relies on this white-centered assumption, the writer should most definitely NOT pick out the dumbest character in her story and then put the adjective, "Asian" in front of his name. How offensive is it that the professor, the art student, the doctor, the scientist, the geeky Stanford graduate, the researcher, and the inspiring female stranger on a bus, the loving uncle, the important friend/roommate, and the strange spunky kid with a fedora, are all presumed (or directly stated) to be white, while the dumb institutionalized wacko that sings random songs to introduce himself is "The Asian Ray Charles"?

And by the way, almost half of those White characters I listed above were completely uninteresting and furthered absolutely nothing towards the ultimate theme of the book. Especially the Hippie Santa Cruz Chick, Stanford Grad, and Fedora Wearer. What a waste of ink and paper....more